User Tag List

First 51314151617 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 205

  1. #141
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    They can be registered as charitable organizations here, getting tax breaks due to said status. Fucking bullshit.
    Likes prplchknz, Passacaglia liked this post

  2. #142
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Not sure about this one Kyuuei. If you term marriage as the legal arrangement then I'd agree wholeheartedly, it's insane. No set of rules should define who forms a legal coupling other than to protect society (hence you can't marry someone under age of consent). However if you mean the religious ceremony then I'm sorry but if you sign up to the religion then you should abide by it, not just the bits you agree with.
    What about those of us whose religion doesn't prohibit same sex marriage, and in fact would like to accept them and host the weddings but can't because of a legal roadblock?
    Likes Julius_Van_Der_Beak, Passacaglia liked this post

  3. #143
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    There's a side to everything. At the end of the day, you put the pieces together and find out what the world is trying to show you. But my view is *not* one dimensional and cliche. Dismissing a stance the same way a woman would dismiss another woman for her choice and taste in shoes does not make it one dimensional. What is cliche and over-tired is heterosexual people going, 'I don't care, the world don't even care, why are you pushing your agenda onto me?' as if homosexuals have some agenda in the first place. It isn't them with agenda, it is heteros. No one would be pushing for anything if ANY majority would just take some active effort into critical thinking and fix issues before they became issues. If the majority would take a serious moment to just empathize, and relate to the minorities in their population, a lot of issues would be non-issues. If even one major lawmaker was like, "Oh hey, so I noticed we only have men and women allowed to marry but no one mentioned anything like that in the laws officially. Why do we even have this? Seems like it's just based on subjective bias.. Let's change it." 'Oh hey, I noticed that all adults do not have the same rights yet for no reason at all. Let's change that before we go through years and years of treating other human beings like property and trash to avoid a civil war. Let's establish that precedent now.'

    An extreme feminist screaming about what kind of shirt a man wears when he lands on a god damn comet? That's pushing one dimension, ill-thought-out agendas. A homosexual saying he wants to get married but heterosexuals are being silly about the issue? That's not an agenda. That's someone fighting for rights that ought to have existed long ago if it were not for the bigoted bias of majority parties.

    You're saying you don't care if homosexuals do their thing, just to leave you out of it. They want the same thing. But they require heteros to get there because everyone has to work as a whole in society to get shit done. Heterosexuals created this mess, so of COURSE homosexuals are going to bug them to fix their own shit and take out their own trash. Minorities cannot vote out the majority on their own, and voting is the best system we've come up with so far.. not that it's perfect by any means.
    I dont agree with you, on a number of points but I dont think you're that interested and are more interested in deploying a kind of preprepared statement, maybe you've heard some place of picked up a little from a long time ago but I didnt so much as mention "agenda" in this thread so I'm suspiscion that you're responding to something other than what I actually wrote. Its fine, you maybe had a burning desire to do so and that's alright. It's just less of a conversation or discussion and more of a matter of talking at someone, which if you've ever exprienced it, and I think we've all expereinced it at some point, you'll know is no fun and not something you'd volunteer for. I used to feel much more compelled to volunteer for that sort of thing, imagining it was some sort of "stepping up to the plate" than I do today.

    I also think its curious that you think any of that would be new information or that I wouldnt have thought of it from that angle. That's kind of disappointing. Just because you dont agree with someone shouldnt be automatic grounds to insult their intelligence with assumptions of their ignorance.

    I'd encourage you to think about this a bit more and rethink what you're saying but its a free country and you might decide you're satisfied with the conclusions you've reached. That's fine. I find it singularly unpersuasive.

  4. #144
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    If you think this is going to dissuade me from addressing the issue when you say crap about this, you got another thing coming.
    OK your emoting and aggressive pitch has persuaded me, for how long have you been a master of communication now?

    Far be it from me to try and break your stride there, I'll leave that to, I dont know, reality.

  5. #145
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis
    As I understand Keystone, it would create about 36 permanent job. Whatever benefits it has do not lie in job creation.
    What's wrong with thousands of high paying temporary full time jobs? Most of the jobs created by Obama's stimulus bill were temporary.

    So, how would you ensure that $20 trillion went to the needy or to job creation? There are probably more effective ways to address poverty than many of the approaches that have been tried. Not addressing poverty, however, is not one of them.
    China lifted about 400 million out of poverty via Reaganomics. By relieving the regulatory burden (roughly $1.7 trillion/year) on businesses, that allows businesses more money to expand, to raise salaries, and to hire more people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate
    The novel is about how the migrants were totally exploited. They went hungry and a couple of them even died. So I don't think this makes the point you were trying to make?
    Xander had made the point that it's unrealistic to expect people to move for a job. Obviously, that's not true as this novel illustrates.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    You presuppose benevolence.
    No I don't. Competition drives businesses to respond to the wishes of their customers; businesses that ignore the wishes of their customers don't survive long.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    A good restaurant is where people want to eat. Does this mean they look after their customers? Not necessarily.
    You said "good restaurant"; by definition, a "good restaurant" is one that looks after their customers.

    If a restaurant is feeding you mechanically recovered, previously unfit for human consumption meat, you'd think they'd go out of business. Apparently not so. You become a global chain instead.
    There's a demand for tasty, processed shit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    The end result is that for a serious desktop PC there's only one choice.
    There's Dell, Compaq, e-Machines, and H-P.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  6. #146
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I think the major issue in the US right now *is* the political aspect of marriage. Unfortunately religious views were used as a basis for prohibiting legal marriage in this regard, and that is what the US is in the process of untangling at the moment, as no one can raise a valid non-religious argument as to why same-sex marriage cannot be legally offered despite the case going to SCOTUS.

    There are some people who would like to see certain religious honor same-sex marriage, but I think that is a war that has to be fought within the denomination(s) themselves and not politically. They're basically battling over the "definition of Christianity" and what the doctrine is going to be.
    Sounds futile to me. A christian is usually someone who finds fault with Catholicism in my experience. They are a diverse and disparate bunch who only agree on a few central things.

    Bloody post modernists
    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Think about it from another perspective: A group of people has taken control of your faith that means so much to you and guides your life, and you are trying to reclaim your religion for what you think is true. That perspective is in operation for BOTH sides; to ask one side to just "give up and abdicate" something they value so highly and has been such an integral part of their lives even to this very day is a rather ludicruous suggestion. You are asking them to relinquish their entire past and the ideas that form who they are.
    No one can change your faith only your religious organisation. If you allow an outside organisation to determine your internal world then you would have my pity.

    Besides, any organisation who had my loyalty and effectively shafted me so brutally wouldn't have my loyalty for long.

    Perhaps I'm the wrong person to theorise this as I really don't hold with following groups very well.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    What about those of us whose religion doesn't prohibit same sex marriage, and in fact would like to accept them and host the weddings but can't because of a legal roadblock?
    The legal roadblock is the ridiculous part. Unless you are defending the species, in which case I'd still count this as unnecessary intrusion, then why interfere?
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  7. #147
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    [QUOTE=Tellenbach;2422911]What's wrong with thousands of high paying temporary full time jobs? Most of the jobs created by Obama's stimulus bill were temporary.



    China lifted about 400 million out of poverty via Reaganomics. By relieving the regulatory burden (roughly $1.7 trillion/year) on businesses, that allows businesses more money to expand, to raise salaries, and to hire more people.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Xander had made the point that it's unrealistic to expect people to move for a job. Obviously, that's not true as this novel illustrates.
    I can forgive your lack of understanding of strong laws regarding employment considering your locale but trust me, there's a reason you can get relocation costs in the UK. A business can afford to relocate, especially if it has multiple buildings. The entire workforce doing likewise? A little unreasonable and smacks of a way to get rid of people without following proper procedures. Easily abused.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    No I don't. Competition drives businesses to respond to the wishes of their customers; businesses that ignore the wishes of their customers don't survive long.
    Incorrect in many cases. Microsoft holds it's customers because they can't move to other OS's without losing the programs they use (mostly gamers). Well you could change but it's a whole load of hassle, effectively driving competition out of the window. The victor writes the rules so you'd best hope the winner is benevolent or you'll only get a limited bout of competition and then a long stint of no choice.

    Realistically it's similar to "might equals right" as shown by price wars which drive small businesses under and collusion between competitors to ensure no credible alternative exists.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    You said "good restaurant"; by definition, a "good restaurant" is one that looks after their customers.
    I'm sorry but that's your definition of good not mine. To me a good restaurant serves good food, the service is a secondary concern as I am a patron for the food not the company of servants showing deference.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    There's a demand for tasty, processed shit.
    Labelled as? Survey says "real beef". Well it is "real beef", kinda. Just the beef that's not fit to eat until we wash it in a ton of ammonia.

    Plus we then find out that it's extra yummy but can kill you, except the company takes no role in this. They just laugh an ply the same stuff, making tons of cash...until it becomes public knowledge...then they revamp and come up with something to distract you.

    In your free market dream do supermarkets still arrange their shops with the help of psychologists?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    There's Dell, Compaq, e-Machines, and H-P.
    I was talking about the processor. The company shoving a label on the front does nothing for it's performance.

    Anyhow, if you really want to discuss this...how about a new thread where you can explain this free market stuff? Unless you've already done one...<<<goes to look>>>
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  8. #148
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Not sure about this one Kyuuei. If you term marriage as the legal arrangement then I'd agree wholeheartedly, it's insane. No set of rules should define who forms a legal coupling other than to protect society (hence you can't marry someone under age of consent). However if you mean the religious ceremony then I'm sorry but if you sign up to the religion then you should abide by it, not just the bits you agree with.

    I've seen the arguments played out over here and I can't fathom why someone would follow or care for a religion which demonises them for their heartfelt choices. It's kind of like buying a bike as an agoraphobic and then complaining it works best outside and it should be changed to work better indoors. If you made the choice to join said religion then you should live by the consequences of your choice. I'd even call it reasonable.
    I think that is reasonable, I'd add the caveat that legal couplings of homosexuals should be termed civil partnerships and not marriages, that's with no disrespect to homosexuals, its just that I feel the english language has been abused enough without conflating terms for political purposes.

    There is already the distinction of homosexual rather than heterosexual so there is presumably an acceptable level of distinction and difference when it comes to the identification of pair bondings and sexual orientation so I dont see any reason what so ever for objecting to a legal and literal distinction and difference.

    To be honest, and this is what I think much of it boils down to, at root there is a problem here with expectations. Expecting that everyone else will abandon their norms and shape their opinions and views to suit your own private choices and identity is a problem.

    There has always been an unspoken understanding in most minority-majority relations of reasonable adjustment, not to conflate disability, or perhaps differences in ability, but I think this illustrates my point, none but the insanely radical would suppose that, for instance, someone who needs to wear spectacles to see should instead of using the spectacles to adjust their vision should stop wearing their spectacles and expect every billboard or piece of printed matter etc. used by everyone, those short or long sighted like them and those with 20/20 vision alike, to be adjusted for them.

    That's just one example I can think of, others I could list, just from my own personal experience, would include that I identify as a catholic and a socialist and a dozen other things, I dont expect anyone else to adopt the norms that I associate with those aspects of my identity or exercise any sort of defference to them. I even know there are going to be people sharply disapprove and disagree even resist those norms, and that's alright.

    The whole idea that the heteronormative status quo could or should be over turned to please and placate what is proportionally a small, small section of the community, and their probably much larger politically interested fellows, without consequence, for all, and every chance negative consequence is bogus. I really cant help but think if there could be less emoting about this, if things like religion could be set to one side and it considered wholly rationally and reasonably, that it be considered with full possession of the facts and consideration from all angles the conclusions people would reach would be a lot different that what's usually spewed out.
    Likes LonestarCowgirl liked this post

  9. #149
    Senior Member prplchknz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    yupp
    Posts
    29,782

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Case in point:

    - You see a guy and a girl walking down the street holding hands. "Oh, isn't that sweet? They're so in love! They look so happy together."

    - You see two guys walking down the street holding hands. "That's weird, I feel sick. What's wrong with them? I wish they'd stop flaunting their sexuality!"

    - You see two girls walking down the street holding hands. "They must be really good friends, how cute."


    And we're only talking about holding hands here.

    One instance is socially validated; one instance is viewed as morally repulsive; and the other is whitewashed so that it doesn't really exist.

    Realistically, all three should just be treated the same.
    yeah or at least the 1st and last one simiarly the middle one never ever ever ever. because i've held hands with dudes and neither of us wanted to sleep with the other. so the 3rd thing would apply to that but being different genders its gonna be asssumed we're dating.
    In no likes experiment.

    that is all

    i dunno what else to say so

  10. #150
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    The legal roadblock is the ridiculous part. Unless you are defending the species, in which case I'd still count this as unnecessary intrusion, then why interfere?
    What if the none interference resulted in a heteronormative society in which homosexuality was extinct?

    I'm not saying it would but the reality is non-interference sounds fine until it doesnt produce the desired results, so what's really being discussed is what sort of interference, for what results.

    The institution of marriage, and its legal definition and protections, emerged spontaneously as part of the spontaneous order and it reflected and served that order, which was/is a heteronormative order. It wasnt part of some conspiracy by some dictatorial agency to keep anyone down, treat anyone as an outsider, under appreciate, reject or devalue or invalidate anyone. To entertain any of the propaganda and protest for a single moment to all appearences there's been a serious mobilisation and engineered oppression going on, in reality its much more mundane. People have been living their lives and those lives and the consequence norms are not reflective of everyone and every possible scenario.

    I just think its impossible to please everyone and every possible scenario and dangerous to try. Sooner or later you have an instant grievance any time anyone feels society, that's strangers for the most part, living lives quite apart from the individuals in question, who may not ever meet them or cross their paths, is out of step with them and they can and will seek redress through the state and a vulgar display of power. Today its barring people from running a business or their choosen employment, as has happened in the UK, tommorrow its greater attempts to police peoples consciences still.

    And at the end of it all there's a bunch of hot blooded people wondering how the fuck did we all end up here because all they wanted to do, all they so desperately wanted to do, was do right by everyone and please everyone and what could possibly be wrong with that?
    Likes LonestarCowgirl liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-24-2017, 10:49 PM
  2. Denmark's prime minister says Bernie Sanders is wrong to call his country socialist
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-02-2015, 01:28 PM
  3. all scans says my computer is clean
    By prplchknz in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-08-2014, 07:07 PM
  4. What type would you say this guy is?
    By Samvega in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-14-2009, 05:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO